For a creativity boost, think outside the box…literally

A new study on creative thinking shows that acting out metaphors related to …

It happens in schools, cubicles, and boardrooms everywhere: someone working on a project hits a mental block. A boss or teacher might resort to a cliché like "think outside the box" or "put two and two together," encouraging a creative solution to the problem. As it turns out, this isn’t just abstract advice. According to an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, literally working outside of a box or putting two halves of something together just might help those creative juices start flowing again.

Since physical metaphors regarding creativity are so common and appear in several different languages, a group of researchers hypothesized that they may extend beyond mere clichés. But can acting out metaphors really affect how our minds work?

In the first part of the study, the researchers asked 102 undergraduates to perform a Remote Associates Test (RAT), in which the subject is given three seemingly unrelated words and asked to come up with a word that relates to each one. For example, the subject might be given "measure," "worm," and "video," and the correct response would be "tape."

Before being given this task, however, the participants were divided into three groups; members of one group were asked to perform this task while sitting inside a 5' by 5' cardboard box, those in another group had to perform this task while sitting outside the same box, and those in the third group performed the task without a box in the room at all. None of the participants knew the hypothesis behind the study; they were merely told it was an experiment on different work environments.

There was no difference in performance between those inside the box and those with no box at all. However, the participants that were seated outside the box did much better on the RAT than the other two groups. Apparently, something about literally "thinking outside the box" encourages creativity. This effect held up even after controlling for feelings of privacy and claustrophobia due to the box.

A second experiment looked at another well-known piece of advice: to "put two and two together" to come up with an answer. In this part of the study, 64 subjects were divided into two groups. The first group had to perform a RAT while joining halves of cut paper coasters from piles on each side of a desk. The second group performed a similar task, but only had to move coaster halves from one side of a desk to the other side. Those "putting two and two together" by uniting the two halves of the coasters did far better on the RAT than those that were merely moving the coasters from one pile to another.

The RAT is a test of "convergent thinking," since the subject has to recognize a single connection between three very different words. The researchers hypothesized that those joining coaster halves did so well on the RAT because they were embodying a metaphor about uniting different things.

As a follow up, they used the two coaster conditions again, but this time asked the participants to perform a test of "divergent thinking" called the Lego test. In this test, a subject is shown a picture of something built with just two or three Lego blocks, and they must think of as many things as they can that could be represented by the picture. This task measures the ability to come up with many alternatives rather than bringing several concepts together. On this task, the two groups performed about the same; "putting two and two together" by joining coasters didn’t give the participants any advantage in a divergent thinking test.

The researchers also found that considering a problem "on one hand" and then "the other hand" worked, as well—subjects who sequentially held up both hands came up with more novel solutions then those who just held up a single hand. Additionally, they found that simply "thinking outside the box" in your head—by walking different paths with a computerized avatar—increased creativity. In some cases, it might be enough to embody these metaphors internally rather than physically.

So, acting out metaphors linked to creativity really can help us think creatively. In fact, it does more than let us access the knowledge we presently have; it encourages us to come up with new, unique, and creative ideas. Next time you’re stuck on a problem, take a minute to ponder—or even act out—your favorite metaphor, and you might happen upon a great solution.

There was no difference in performance between those inside the box and those with no box at all. However, the participants that were seated outside the box did much better on the RAT than the other two groups. Apparently, something about literally "thinking outside the box" encourages creativity. This effect held up even after controlling for feelings of privacy and claustrophobia due to the box.

So all I have to do to be more creative is to get a cardboard box and sit it next to me? Really? I recognize that there isn't a tired cliché attached to this, but how about a puppy?

A quick request for Kate/Ars: If there's no DOI available, could you please provide author names and paper title so we can find the subject of the post? It's rather annoying to read an article without enough citation data to find the paper, or at least its authors.

This is no doubt something done by the embodiment people. The sequential hand lifting and the incredibly sophisticated measurement "more novel solutions" are a dead give-away. If it looks like bollocks, talks like bollocks and smells like bollocks, it is bollocks. And this is it. But hey, it's significant, so Psychological Science will publish it.

A quick request for Kate/Ars: If there's no DOI available, could you please provide author names and paper title so we can find the subject of the post? It's rather annoying to read an article without enough citation data to find the paper, or at least its authors.

There was no difference in performance between those inside the box and those with no box at all. However, the participants that were seated outside the box did much better on the RAT than the other two groups. Apparently, something about literally "thinking outside the box" encourages creativity. This effect held up even after controlling for feelings of privacy and claustrophobia due to the box.

So all I have to do to be more creative is to get a cardboard box and sit it next to me? Really? I recognize that there isn't a tired cliché attached to this, but how about a puppy?

Thanks for the laugh.

Seriously, this was a science practical joke, right? RIGHT?

"Bob, people will believe *anything*. We'll publish a paper saying, ohh, 'If you literally sit outside a box, you'll think more creatively'. Those morons will DO it, I tell you! Case of beer if this gets picked up outside the journal inside a month. Deal?"

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this, but a 5' by 5' cardboard box? That is (a) really, really big [i mean, industrial appliance carton-sized] and (b) missing a third dimension.

Ahem. Somebody did comment on it already. Me. :-(

As for the 3rd dimension of the box, it was only half a foot high. They were 'playing fort' just like when they were kids. This is where the extra creativity came from: the child-like mindset. No, I made all that up.

A quick request for Kate/Ars: If there's no DOI available, could you please provide author names and paper title so we can find the subject of the post? It's rather annoying to read an article without enough citation data to find the paper, or at least its authors.

Absolutely. When I was getting my degree in Psychology, I did an impromptu review of "The Journal of Experimental Psychology", and discovered that 7 of 10 articles I checked had experimental error. I don't believe something as counterintuitive as this without reading the paper and replication studies.

Ack! One of management's favorite metaphors is "shoot the engineer and move on." Hope they don't act THAT one out...

Actually, this is another mangled metaphor. I heard it 40 years ago, in my first job, as a comment on knowing when the potential additional features and bug fixes fell below the release threshhold: "There comes a time when you have to shoot the engineer and ship the project."

Interestingly, no one I've ever told about that has ever heard it before; they all think it's funny. I wonder if I started a viral cliche?

'In the first part of the study, the researchers asked 102 undergraduates to perform a Remote Associates Test (RAT), in which the subject is given three seemingly unrelated words and asked to come up with a word that relates to each one. For example, the subject might be given "measure," "worm," and "video," and the correct response would be "tape." '

When I read "the correct response", I almost broke out laughing; it triggered a memory of a group training session I participated in, when they tried to encourage creative thinking. My group was truly creative, but the winners of the test were a group who followed the rules to a 't'. I wondered: how can people who aren't creative themselves teach or judge creativity? I called it "teaching creativity by the book".

Beyond the observation that "video tape" is an outdated association, what initally came to mind was an inchworm on YouTube... As a psych graduate, I understand the need for unequivocal tests to allow ranking, but I hate those tests.

Kate Shaw Yoshida / Kate is a science writer for Ars Technica. She recently earned a dual Ph.D. in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior from Michigan State University, studying the social behavior of wild spotted hyenas.